Euros

[cwyeary]

How many foul throws, both teams, have been missed.

Who calls foul throws in 2021?

 

[cwyeary]

I see 2 KMIs the ref has got wrong and VAR has not affected

I think he got the correct decisions reversed on the two PK shouts, but I think the VAR was correct to not intervene on either.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Never a penalty!

If Italy get a decision like that on Sunday, the media will go nuts about how England have been cheated!

 

[ARF]

I see 2 KMIs the ref has got wrong and VAR has not affected

2?

 

[santa sangria]

2?

The Kane one looked like a pen to me

 

[ARF]

The Kane one looked like a pen to me

To me it looked like Kane kicked the back of the defender's ankle!

 

[ladbroke8745]

What about the one on Henderson?

 

[Jorik0907]

I'm especially wondering: wasn't there a second ball on the pitch before Sterling ran into the 18?

 

[JamesL]

I'm especially wondering: wasn't there a second ball on the pitch before Sterling ran into the 18?

Did it interfere with play?

 

[cwyeary]

I'm especially wondering: wasn't there a second ball on the pitch before Sterling ran into the 18?

Yes but it never interfered with play.

 

[santa sangria]

The game ends with a Kane dive.

Well, minimum interference! They mastered that part!

 

[socal lurker]

I'm especially wondering: wasn't there a second ball on the pitch before Sterling ran into the 18?

Did it interfere with play?

It was odd, but I thought M was 100% right not to stop play. I think it was 3 or 4 years ago that the Laws made more clear that there needed to be real interference to stop.

 

[socal lurker]

So, is there something somehow fitting about England winning the semi on a PK it missed?

 

[Jorik0907]

Did it interfere with play?

Probably as much as the one a few minutes later where he did halt play. Sterling ran a yard past it or something.

 

[Jorik0907]

Mean that does look quite interfering enough for me to halt play

Particularly coming from here, he's running towards it

 

[JamesL]

Mean that does look quite interfering enough for me to halt play

Particularly coming from here, he's running towards it

It doesn't affect play, or anyones ability ot play the ball.
Presence is not interference. There must be an impact

 

[RustyRef]

That's interesting that there is a formal distinction made by level between the two ways to decide when to signal. I suppose there is some logic to it--at lower levels there is more value in the "I saw it and am trying to see if there is really advantage" method as players may be less attuned to advantage, whereas the higher level players understand the concept well, so just waiting

Think it is more that at lower levels there is a risk of revenge, so if the referee does nothing he risks the fouled player thinking he has just missed it and getting up an clumping the opponent. Whereas if there is a loud shout of advantage the fouled player will know the referee has seen it and is playing advantage.

 

[RustyRef]

What about the one on Henderson?

No chance, even Henderson didn't appeal for that one.

 

[socal lurker]

Think it is more that at lower levels there is a risk of revenge, so if the referee does nothing he risks the fouled player thinking he has just missed it and getting up an clumping the opponent. Whereas if there is a loud shout of advantage the fouled player will know the referee has seen it and is playing advantage.

That's pretty much what I was saying, but you said it better . . . we don't have that kind of instructing that I've seen here in the US. My tendency is to wait unless I'm worried about retaliation or that the players might not realize they should keep playing.

 

[RustyRef]

I think the penalty is soft, but I also think it is given for the second challenge (Jensen I think) who catches Sterling's thigh. No way VAR can overrule because of that contact.